Re: HTML5 script start tag should select appropriate content model according to src

On Apr 23, 2007, at 19:03, Tina Holmboe wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 06:31:52PM +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
>> In writing that uses the Latin script, italicization is more sticky
>> than the typeface. Hence, italics are closer to being part of the
>> content.
>
>   No, it is part of the presentation. The acid test apply: if you
>   remove the italics, will the content /still/ be "Latin"? If
>   yes, then the italics is presentational, and vice versa: if you
>   make a word italics, is it then also Latin? If not, then it
>   isn't structural.

If italics didn't carry any signal, why would authors use italics?

>> You seem to be assuming that semantic markup is good for the sake of
>> semantics. I see semantic markup as merely a means to achieve media
>
>   Philip is, in such a case, not alone in making that assumption
>   I would be quite interested in hearing you explain
>   what 'semantic markup' is good for if not for /semantics/.

Semantics in and of themselves are not interesting unless they  
address problems posed by real use cases.

>   And frankly, no, 'media independence' doesn't make much sense in
>   this context. A DIV with styling set in various media-specific
>   stylesheets would be media independent, but not much of worth
>   semantically.

If you've got all conceivable media covered, what would you use the  
semantics for? Do you have realistic data mining use cases in mind  
where the content producers would have the incentive to help the data  
miner and not lie?

>> independence. The reality is that normal people don't want to encode
>> the reason why they italicized something. They just want to select
>> some text, hit ctrl-i or command-i and be done with it.
>
>   If people, as you yourself say, has no interest in using the I- 
> element
>   for semantic purposes, then why is anyone at all suggesting  
> replacing
>   the previous definition - it's presentational - with a new one
>   that specify it to have a semantic meaning which people, again
>   according to yourself, have no interest in using?

To sprinkle disguising semantic pixie dust to sooth the concerns of  
anti-presentationalists, I guess.

>   This is a /very/ minor issue, but important, and should have been
>   out of the WA1 long before now - and certainly shouldn't be a
>   basis for a new version of HTML!

How do you expect the spec to have been shaped to your liking without  
you participating in the process on the WHATWG list?

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 16:28:02 UTC